Why Pluto Matters in the March for Science
There I was yesterday morning, squeezing my way through packed and roasting hot Pershing Square at LA's March for Science, when I happened upon my own personal nerdy highlight of the day. Standing in front of the Caltech exhibition tent was Mike Brown, the astronomer whose discovery of several objects in the outer solar system led to the reclassification (some say "demotion") of Pluto from a "planet" to a "dwarf planet." I'd seen him at a couple of times at Planetary Society events, so I recognized him immediately. He wasn't talking about Pluto (although his t-shirt did say, "Pluto had it coming") but instead was showing people a piece of the meteor that slammed into northern Arizona about 50,000 years ago, creating Meteor Crater. I even got to hold the thing. It was heavy!
I posted about this encounter on Facebook, and someone responded with "Homer is Homer and Pluto is a planet." I had no idea that's the tagline comedian Larry Miller uses at the end of his podcasts, so I took it seriously, and when I got home I launched into my take on Pluto's place in the solar system. So yeah, I was a little embarrassed when the guy pointed out that he was quoting something... but after a day to think about it, I've decided the Pluto question really does have a place in the March for Science. It illustrates why the March for Science became necessary.
Allow me to explain. To me, the question of whether Pluto is a planet or a dwarf planet (which is still a planet, by the way, just as my compact car is still a car) doesn't matter as much as the importance of being consistent in what we call things. Scientists began to think about reclassifying Pluto when they discovered it's not alone. There are a number of other objects out there - Eris, Makemake, Quaoar, Sedna, Haumea and probably others yet to be discovered. When you look at the two groups of objects - the traditional planets and these Kuiper Belt dwarf planets - it's obvious that Pluto belongs with the latter group. It's the same size (Pluto and Eris are practically twins) and has the same kind of oddly-shaped orbit in the outer solar system. Whichever category you want to put Pluto into, you must put all the others in that category as well. If you want Pluto to be a planet, then all the others have to be planets, too. If you don't want the others to be planets, then Pluto can't be a planet either. Back in 2006, the IAU considered both of those options, and went with the latter one, reclassifying Pluto as a dwarf planet.
But a large (or at least vocal) segment of the public has decided that popular sentiment should override scientific definitions. We should call Pluto a planet, they say, because we like it, or because it's always been a planet and we don't want to see it "demoted." But that's not how science works. If you come across a group of cats, you don't say, "I think I'll call one of them a dog, because it looks really cute and I like dogs more than cats." A cat is still a cat, no matter how you feel about it. And the same goes for Pluto. Maybe you think it's cuter than its Kuiper Belt neighbors (we've never seen the others up close, so how would you know?), but it's still a part of that group.
Pluto may be a trivial case, inconsequential enough in daily life that Larry Miller can poke fun at it in his tagline, but it illustrates the larger problem that launched the March for Science. If Pluto can be a planet just because we like it, what other scientific realities can we do away with? Right now, we've got an administration in Washington that thinks it can make climate change go away because they don't like what it implies for their business interests. If we can just say that Pluto is a planet, why can't we just say that climate change is a Chinese hoax? And while we're at it, why can't we just say that vaccines cause autism? There's no evidence for it, but some people really need something to blame, so why not? If Pluto can be a planet just because we like it, then anything can be anything and scientific rigor means nothing.
Is that over the top? Eh, maybe... but if you're going to March for Science, then March for Science!
Speaking of which, here are a few more of my photos.
I wish I could have stayed into the afternoon and checked out the exposition they held, but the only train back to Moorpark left at 12:30 and if I missed it, I would have had to wait until 7:00 and taken a bus. I have a feeling there will still be a need to March for Science next year, though, so maybe I can see more then.
I posted about this encounter on Facebook, and someone responded with "Homer is Homer and Pluto is a planet." I had no idea that's the tagline comedian Larry Miller uses at the end of his podcasts, so I took it seriously, and when I got home I launched into my take on Pluto's place in the solar system. So yeah, I was a little embarrassed when the guy pointed out that he was quoting something... but after a day to think about it, I've decided the Pluto question really does have a place in the March for Science. It illustrates why the March for Science became necessary.
Allow me to explain. To me, the question of whether Pluto is a planet or a dwarf planet (which is still a planet, by the way, just as my compact car is still a car) doesn't matter as much as the importance of being consistent in what we call things. Scientists began to think about reclassifying Pluto when they discovered it's not alone. There are a number of other objects out there - Eris, Makemake, Quaoar, Sedna, Haumea and probably others yet to be discovered. When you look at the two groups of objects - the traditional planets and these Kuiper Belt dwarf planets - it's obvious that Pluto belongs with the latter group. It's the same size (Pluto and Eris are practically twins) and has the same kind of oddly-shaped orbit in the outer solar system. Whichever category you want to put Pluto into, you must put all the others in that category as well. If you want Pluto to be a planet, then all the others have to be planets, too. If you don't want the others to be planets, then Pluto can't be a planet either. Back in 2006, the IAU considered both of those options, and went with the latter one, reclassifying Pluto as a dwarf planet.
But a large (or at least vocal) segment of the public has decided that popular sentiment should override scientific definitions. We should call Pluto a planet, they say, because we like it, or because it's always been a planet and we don't want to see it "demoted." But that's not how science works. If you come across a group of cats, you don't say, "I think I'll call one of them a dog, because it looks really cute and I like dogs more than cats." A cat is still a cat, no matter how you feel about it. And the same goes for Pluto. Maybe you think it's cuter than its Kuiper Belt neighbors (we've never seen the others up close, so how would you know?), but it's still a part of that group.
Pluto may be a trivial case, inconsequential enough in daily life that Larry Miller can poke fun at it in his tagline, but it illustrates the larger problem that launched the March for Science. If Pluto can be a planet just because we like it, what other scientific realities can we do away with? Right now, we've got an administration in Washington that thinks it can make climate change go away because they don't like what it implies for their business interests. If we can just say that Pluto is a planet, why can't we just say that climate change is a Chinese hoax? And while we're at it, why can't we just say that vaccines cause autism? There's no evidence for it, but some people really need something to blame, so why not? If Pluto can be a planet just because we like it, then anything can be anything and scientific rigor means nothing.
Is that over the top? Eh, maybe... but if you're going to March for Science, then March for Science!
Speaking of which, here are a few more of my photos.
I wish I could have stayed into the afternoon and checked out the exposition they held, but the only train back to Moorpark left at 12:30 and if I missed it, I would have had to wait until 7:00 and taken a bus. I have a feeling there will still be a need to March for Science next year, though, so maybe I can see more then.
Comments